TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act,1961. For the impugned assessment year, assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) on 26.12.2019, where Assessing Officer has denied benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act on the ground that assessee has violated provisions of section 13(3) r.w.s. 13(2)(a) for the reason that return required to be filed u/s.139(1) was not filed within the due date for filing return of income, accordingly, entire income has been brought to tax. 3. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer has created high pitched demand only on technical grounds for not filing return of income within the due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Act, ignoring reasons given by assessee for delay in filing of return. The AR fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the due date for filing the return of income specified u/s 139(1). Here the return of income was filed on 30/3/2018, which falls beyond the due date 31-10-1017 for A. Y.20/17-18. Hence the assessee is not eligible for claiming of deduction u/s 11(2). In view of the above, the amount of ` 22,00,00000/- is disallowed and added to the total income. Since the entire surplus income is assessed, no separate addition is made towards disallowance of accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00.000/- and as the funds were advanced to the employees of the rust, it can be concluded that funds were advanced to a person as defined in 13(3)(cc) As per the provisions of section 13(2)(a), if any part of the income of the trust is continues to be lent for any per/ad duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause genuine hardship. Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singahiji of Mewar v ITAT (1997) 223 ITR 192(Raj). Soul vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 173 Taxman 468 (Del). 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd vs. Dy. CIT {2008) 307 ITR 103 (Del) has considered the Instruction No. 96 dated 21/8/1969 issued by the CBDTand held that where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, than the collection of tax in dispute should be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal is taken. Soul vs. Dy.CIT (2008) 220 CTR 211) Issue: Whether he decision in Valvoline Cummins Ltd Dy. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 103 relying on Instruction No. 96 is bad in law in view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or doing so. Mere filing an appeal against the assessment order wilI not be sufficient reason to stay the recovery of demand. A few illustrative situations where stay could be granted are - (a) ii the demand in dispute relates to issues that have been decided in assesses favour by an appellate authority or court earlier or (b) if the demand in dispute has arisen because the Assessing Officer had adopted an interpretation of law in respect of which there exist conflicting decisions of one or more High Courts (not of the High Court under whose jurisdiction the Assessing OI1cer is working); or (c) if the High Court having jurisdiction has adopted a contrary interpretation but the Department has not accepted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the issue was same." 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, referring to amended provisions submitted that before granting stay, assessee is required to pay at least 20% of disputed demand. Therefore, before granting any stay, assessee may be directed to pay at least 20% of disputed demand. 5. We have heard both parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. We find that assessee has not paid any amount towards outstanding demand created by Assessing Officer . As per the amended provisions of section 254 (2A) of the Act, before granting any stay, assessee is required to deposit at least 20% of disputed tax. When this provision is apprised to learned AR for the assessee , he pleaded that a....